Posted on 05/25/2013 4:22:36 AM PDT by NYer
I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “beating a dead horse.” It refers to something that has been said or done so many times that it has outlived its usefulness. This is especially true of arguments that are not only old but also untrue.
Like the proverbial horse, the Roman emperor Constantine has been beaten to death by anti-Catholics.
I make it a point to check all of the comments posted on our YouTube and Facebook pages at least twice a day. As sure as fish live in water, I have come to expect at least one message a day from a Christian Fundamentalist about how the Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine sometime in the fourth century.
It’s almost unfathomable to me that in this day and age Fundamentalists still have not learned to verify the validity of their anti-Catholic arguments. But then again, with so many websites making claims like “Constantine founded the Catholic Church” living on in cyberspace, it’s no wonder some folks still cling to what blogger Mark Shea refers to as “pseudo knowledge.”
It would be nice if this falsity were confined to Fundamentalist circles, but sadly it is not. As atheist podcast host and blogger David Smalley explains on his website:
The Bible was 'canonized' around 325 C.E. (about 275+ years after Jesus' death) with Constantine in charge. . . . At the time Constantine was overseeing the canonization or 'building' of the Bible, if he didn't agree with the text, it was thrown out. There are tons of 'scriptures' that did not make it in. A quick research on the Council of Nicaea will prove this.
There’s no doubt that Constantine was favorable to Christianity. Still, many people mistakenly believe that he not only favored it but that he made it the state religion. He did not. He signed the Edict of Milan, which made it legal to practice Christianity and ordered that the Christians’ confiscated property be returned to them.
Another mistaken notion is that Constantine exercised complete control over the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The primary reason for the council was due to the growing Arian heresy. Jimmy Akin summarizes Arianism this way:
[Arianism was] founded by Arius, a priest of Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 300s. Arius held that originally the Son of God did not exist. There was a time in which there was a single divine Person who became the Father when he created the Son out of nothing. The Son was the first of all created beings and thus separate from the Father in beginning. The heresy was condemned at the first ecumenical council—Nicaea I in 325—but the controversy intensified and lasted much longer (The Fathers Know Best, p. 85).
Constantine did not fully understand why Arianism was so controversial, and he even endorsed many of Arius’s ideas. Historian Dr. James Hitchcock explains:
[W]hen Constantine also endorsed Arius’s ideas, there was an uproar that led the emperor in 325 to call the Council of Nicaea (Asia Minor) to settle the issue. After an intense struggle, the Council condemned Arius, declaring the Son to be “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, sharing the same substance (History of the Catholic Church, p. 83).
If Constantine held as much sway over the Council as many claim, then it is a peculiar thing that the Christology he favored was the big loser.
The next anti-Catholic claim is summarized in Mr. Smalley’s quote above: It is the idea that Constantine decided which books belonged in the Bible and that the ones he did not favor were left out.
The Council Fathers discussed many things besides Arianism, including the proper dating of Easter, the validity of baptisms administered by heretics, and more. One issue they did not discuss, however, is which books belonged in the Bible. They drafted a list of canons (ecclesiastical laws) that you can read for yourself here.
Mr. Smalley’s assertion that “quick research on the Council of Nicaea” will prove his claim in fact proves otherwise; unless, of course, you are getting your information from anti-Catholic websites that don’t provide any primary sources to back them up.
Finally, there is the claim that Constantine introduced pagan elements into what was “pure” Christianity up to that point. Many Fundamentalists will claim that doctrines like transubstantiation, the communion of saints, or the sacrifice of the Mass were pagan ideas. But all of these teachings and more can be traced back to the time of the Apostles through the writings of the early Christians.
To counter this claim, I highly recommend Jimmy Akin’s book, The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Christians, available from Catholic Answers. I also recommend getting a copy of the May-June 2013 issue of Catholic Answers Magazine, in which I tackle several of the supposed pagan parallels to Catholic practices.
My man cave is inhabited by barn cats and, at the present, non-functioning lawn mowers.
But it does have a fridge and a microwave.
LOL!!
No time to get stuck in traffic; if cars are even allowed in horse and buggy territory. ;)
Cats have some life in your neck of the woods!
The use of the term is a consequence of the theological discussions of the time. Arius was like the modernists of our own times, and like them he was hardly original in that he found the traditional view of Jesus to be too “fundmentalist.” Homoousios in effect, as used by the Council, codified that fundamentalist view.
It wasn’t - a traffic jam not jelly. ;)
Now THIS made me laugh out loud!
Actually; I think the owls have it better.
I’m the one fattening up the cats!
1 Thessalonians 4:16 is talking about the rapture. Then comes the seven year tribulation after which Christ returns with the saints to destroy the earth’s armies at Armageddon. There are many references in scripture to Christ’s return with the saints at the end of the tribulation.
Zechariah 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
Rev. 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
When Christ comes at the end of the tribulation it is totally different then when we “meet Him in the air” as described in 1 Thessalonians. In Revelation 19 we read that He is on a white horse, His eyes are “as a flame of fire” and “out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword”. The two occurrences are not the same.
First the rapture of the Bride of Christ, then the tribulation, then the coming of Christ with the saints to defeat the armies of the Antichrist at Armageddon.
No “born agains” you say? Really? So you think Jesus was mistaken or just that there was no one who was saved?
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
If Catholics would understand scripture instead of listening to the cult of the RCC they would “come out of her” as it says in Revelation.
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
No, the sword hurts... and that is precisely where those 'proto-protestants' were through those 1650 years... under the sword of Rome, or the Roman church (same difference).
The romans fed Catholics to the lions.
actually the protestants murdered thousands of Catholics during the reformation and burned churches. There are many Catholic martyrs from England and other countries that took the reformation too far.
The one and true Catholic Church started at the time of Christ where Christ gave the first Pope, Peter, the priestly authority to run the church. The violent johnny come latelies missed the first 1500 years and watered down the faith to suit their needs.
No, The Romans fed Christians to the lions. And after the formation of the Roman church as 'Catholic', they continued to feed dissenting Christians (and Jews) to the lions.
actually the protestants murdered thousands of Catholics during the reformation and burned churches. There are many Catholic martyrs from England and other countries that took the reformation too far.
A pittance by comparison - Between the Crusades and Inquisitions, The forays into South America, the Middle East, and Northern Africa... For a millennium and half again... The Roman church is no widow.
The one and true Catholic Church started at the time of Christ where Christ gave the first Pope, Peter, the priestly authority to run the church.
'Catholic' and 'pope' belong together - and are pagan terms long before the Roman church usurped the terms. And PAETR/PATR, be it 'Peter' or 'father' along with them. In fact, every single Roman rite predates Christianity in the Mystery religions of the occult.
So your proofs, such as they are, are left wanting. And in that I am being kind - I see no proof at all for your claims, while the proofs pointing toward Babylon abound.
The violent johnny come latelies missed the first 1500 years and watered down the faith to suit their needs.
LOL! Violence? Research the European Crusades if you want to see violence... Not to mention the hideous tortures of the Inquisitions.
Delightful. Usually the religion forums are all heat and no light. Well done.
Plus, I used to think he was a she as well.
Plus, without the vigilant and aggressive pursuit of heretics, Islam wouldn’t have escaped the Arabian peninsula.
;-)
So this is His THIRD return?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.